The federal lawsuit filed by the group of atheists and agnostics against Gov. Rick Perry regarding the Aug. 6 day of prayer in Houston was without merit and was rightly dismissed.

The suit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation alleges the day of prayer and fasting proposed and endorsed by Perry violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Here are the 16 words of the First Amendment that regard religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

We are absolutely certain the governor’s involvement with the prayer and fasting event does not involve Congress making any type of law for or against religion.

Nor does it establish the Texas government’s preference for religion. Is state money being used to pay for the event? Of course not.

We acknowledge it’s reasonable to infer Perry has a personal preference for religion, but that is a different matter entirely and not addressed by the First Amendment.

Simply put, there is nothing wrong with Perry’s inviting like-minded people to a football stadium for prayer and fasting. It’s not like he commandeered the Capitol for the activity or, as previously noted, authorized state money to be used to pay for it.

The atheist group’s rights are not being trampled unless they are being forced to attend — and there is little chance of their being invited, much less being forced to witness the event.

Perry made an open invitation on June 3 for the like-minded to attend the evangelical Christian day of prayer and fasting — a day that is being called The Response.

He said, “Given the trials that beset or nation and world, from the global economic downturn to natural disasters, the lingering danger of terrorism and continued debasement of our culture, I believe it is time to convene the leaders from each of our United States in a day of prayer and fasting, like that described in the book of Joel.”

Perry’s comment about what he believes obviously is a personal matter for him and not an establishment of state policy. He wanted to invite people who share his beliefs, not dictate his view of what all Texans should believe.

The group of atheists and agnostics absolutely has a right to believe such a day of supplication would be meaningless and have no positive effect, if they so choose.

We wonder whether they are willing to acknowledge the right of Perry and Christian individuals and groups to choose what they want to believe.

It is nothing new for America for two sides to be vastly different in their beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious, political or otherwise. In a nation where people are free to formulate their own opinions, that is going to happen.

What we want to see is Americans’ tolerating each other. If an atheist group wanted to invite people to a football stadium in the name of their beliefs or lack thereof, they should be able to do so. Similarly, let the evangelical Christians have their gathering.

The same group that is suing Perry filed suit earlier this year to stop a national day of prayer, but it was not successful. We hope the group’s threatened appeal of its suit’s dismissal will meet the same fate.

At-a-glance

■ Our position: Rick Perry established his personal religious preferences, not the preferences of the state government, with his planning and promotion of the day of prayer and fasting.

■ Why you should care: As Americans, we should seek the freedom for our citizens to choose what they believe and have tolerance for those with different beliefs. It would be wrong for a majority to try to impose its beliefs over a minority, and it is equally wrong for the minority to try to impose its beliefs over the majority.

■ For more information: Log on to our website, www.lubbockonline.com, and enter the words “Group sues Perry” in the search box or type “http://lubbockonline.com/texas/2011-07-14/group-sues-stop-perrys-prayer-day”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

It is very obvious what the anti-Christian forces are up too. They are not going to be happy until they eradicate all vestiges of Christianity from the public view and stop all prayer or Christian gatherings outside the church.

Then they will put more effort into getting churches banned from neighborhoods and their pastors arrested if they use the so called politically correct "hate" speech.

How many times have you heard of a Christian organization filing a law suit to stop some anti-Christian group from having a meeting?
The silence speaks volumes.

Let them meet and pray, I could care less who attends. But some of those evangelical ministers are way too radical for any views I have. I looked up each one of them and explored their past quotes, there's some of them way out in left field. But nobody, is being forced to go.

I just wonder if they have to have a photo ID to attend and show their voter registration card.

When you state:
"How many times have you heard of a Christian organization filing a law suit to stop some anti-Christian group from having a meeting? The silence speaks volumes."

Since you seem to only see the world in Christian and Anti-Christian, let me point out the most recent and obvious.

Supreme Court Justice Paul Feinman dismissed a suit filed by Firefighter Timothy Brown with the backing of the American Center for Law & Justice, a Washington conservative group.

Amercian Center of Law & Justice is a Christian Law Firm.

For those never having been to New York, let me explain in Texas terms. Four Blocks in New York is the same as 40 miles in Texas. So with the backing of a Christian Law Firm an attempt was made to prevent a religion from establishing a house of worship.

There seriously needs to be an awakening among fellow Christians about the return of the "Fire and Brimstone" fundamentalist.
Want a refresher of how religion can get out of hand? Look up prohibition or simply rent a copy of the movie Footloose. Yes there are still towns that prohibit dancing. It is not hard to look back to see the laws were passed with religious backing.

Before the words of liberal, or athiest are thrown my direction. I will point out that I was raised and still am a member of the Church of Christ and a conservative. I simply choose to respect others right to practice their religion and understand the seperation between Civil Rights and Religious Rights.

Your use of the locking preachers up for "Hate" speech is pretty pathetic, considering members of the KKK and Neo-Nazi parties are allowed to rally and speak their beliefs with police protection. How much longer will this fear tactic be used before reason wins?

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

being Jewish or gay is a lot more hazardous than being Christian. Being Christian and gay is pretty problematic, but then some will say that people can't be both Christian and gay (or Christian and liberal or Democrat for that matter).

From personal experience, folks who defined themselves as Christians were probably the most judgmental and "hateful" while I was growing up, and they definitely were the biggest bullies toward my children because my sons defined themselves as agnostics or atheists.

Fortunately, I have traveled and lived elsewhere, so I have run into many people who define themselves as Christians who I have a lot in common with. That sort of thing is happening more around here as well. Again though, some here would tell me that those folks aren't "real" Christians.

I wonder, when dealing with proportional data, what is the legal challenge rate for construction of Christian churches compared to other religious buildings in the US.

I'm pretty sure that "The War on Christianity" is just an excuse to make war on non-Christians, and Christians who don't feel that everyone should legally have to live by their beliefs.

I am not trying to put the world in two groups, one being Christian and one not being Christian. When I use the term anti-Christian, I am pointing to individuals and groups that work openly or behind the scenes to eradicate all vestiges of Christianity from the public view and stop all prayer or Christian gatherings outside the church.

There are thousands upon thousands of people that are not Christians that do not have a problem with Christianity or the role it plays in this country. Like wise there are thousands and thousands of Christians that have no problem with some one not being a Christian or having a different belief.

Of course you are speaking about the ground zero Masque that involves the ACLJ. You are giving people the wrong Impression by being vague about the situation since there are a lot more people and the organizations involved besides the ACLJ. Besides, you cannot begin to compare the situation involving the ground zero masque and the law suit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation to stop a one time prayer meeting.

Actually prohibition was more a movement involving women and other organizations that believed alcohol was the cause of failed marriages and the break up of families and husbands and fathers becoming alcoholics. Churches did get involved, but were not the leaders of the movement so you cannot really say it was religion out of control.

As far as towns that pass laws against dancing and etc., if they have the backing of the majority of the citizens of the town then that is their right. Personally, I think it is ridiculas.

The arrest of pastors for hate speech is already occuring in several European countries. The United States has hate speech laws that could easily be used to arrest a pastor that preaches against homosexuality from the pulpit. It has not happened yet that I know of, but has been advocated as I understand it. I have some research material coming that I should be able to confirm of debunk this. There is a big difference between a permitted political rally and a pastor preaching in a church.

So if this situation was a call to pray to Buddha, and the highest elected civil official of a state, who is to represent all people of that state, called on all the residents of the state to pray to Buddha. You would naturally have no offense to this. If you find yourself saying you would, and yet defend the current event. Well that is called hypocrisy. If the event had been an invitation to all faiths to pray in accordance with their beliefs as opposed to a call for all to pray as a Christian, there would not have been much of an issue.
So when the recent terrorist attacked Norway because of his “Christian” values. Why in the world should anyone not consider all Christians to be terrorists? How many have rushed to judge all those of the Muslim faith based on the actions of a few? How often I have heard comments like “look at their beliefs, that religion if filled with killing.” Let me remind those of Christian history. (Not my preferred link, but Listed are only events that solely occurred on command or participation of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity.) Be careful of the stigmas we create in society upon others, for it can very well backfire.

As for prohibition, now you are the one being vague and misleading. Your comment of “women and other organizations” was actually the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). I will let readers enlighten themselves further. Perhaps you should too?

“The United States has hate speech laws that could easily be used to arrest a pastor that preaches against homosexuality from the pulpit.” First and foremost there is no such thing as a hate speech law in the United States. If you want to compare countries we could be at this all day. But even if someone was to try to make one it would fail because of the very first law. It’s called Freedom of Speech. Just as these “Christians” mentioned below enjoy speaking their beliefs and have not been arrested. So please, stop using this scare tactic it is on its very face a lie.

You said: "When I use the term anti-Christian, I am pointing to individuals and groups that work openly or behind the scenes to eradicate all vestiges of Christianity from the public view and stop all prayer or Christian gatherings outside the church."

My question is this: Why would you think it necessary to hold prayer or Christian gatherings outside the church? Isn't that what the church is for?

You are starting to get argumentative with unrealistic scenarios and it is a waste of time to continue down this line.

The terrorist in Norway was not a Christian. It was speculation by a newspaper reporter.

As for prohibition, yes it was the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union involved. However, the main reason's for them wanting prohibition was due to all the family and financial problems drink was causing not over some religious belief. Take your blinders off and enlighten yourself.

I will stick to my guns on the hate speech laws. As I said before it is happening in Europe and Canada and it is only a matter of time before it will happen here.

“HATE CRIMES” LAWS USED AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN CANADA

June 23, 2008 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

“Many Americans have a warm, fuzzy view of Canada, and have no idea that a totalitarian nation is taking shape, instigated by gay activists and Muslim pressure groups in the name of ‘tolerance.’ They do not know because America’s mainstream media are refusing to cover it” (Robert Knight, “Media Ignore Gagging Sound from Canada,”

You are starting to get argumentative with unrealistic scenarios and it is a waste of time to continue down this line.

The terrorist in Norway was not a Christian. It was speculation by a newspaper reporter.

As for prohibition, yes it was the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union involved. However, the main reason's for them wanting prohibition was due to all the family and financial problems drink was causing not over some religious belief. Take your blinders off and enlighten yourself.

I will stick to my guns on the hate speech laws. As I said before it is happening in Europe and Canada and it is only a matter of time before it will happen here.

“Human rights” and “hate crimes” laws are being used to persecute Christians in many parts of the world, in Europe, Australia, Brazil, even the United States at the local and state level. Hate crimes laws are being promoted at the international level by the United Nations.

The speculation by the news was that it was another attack by a Muslim before the facts were even known. For heaven's sake man, read his manifesto and its right there. He was Christian, he is just being denied, like the reporter that said Mitt Romney wasn't a Christian. Will seeing and hearing be enough to convince you?

So a bunch of women and “other groups”, had the political clout to get alcohol driven from the land, yet it took women until 1970s to get the right to vote at a federal level. This was backed heavily by religious groups. You can criticize the source all you like, at least Wiki attempts to be objective. Unlike linking a site to a website run and managed by a full religious organization. You are entitled to your own opinion Sir, but not the facts of history.

The Freedom of the United States of America compared to other countries that have a declared national religion is still beyond me. The Hate Crime laws in the U. S. you are referring to is to stop, not speech, but action. One can preach all the hell fire and brimstone you want from a pulpit, but the moment someone acts on those beliefs, then that person, not the preacher has crossed the line. Those pesky “Human Rights” and “Hate crimes” law are a direct response to years of persecution of another race or religion mostly by Christians. I suppose you will argue that the bible was not used to support ownership of African Americans during slavery? Or since you want to refer to other countries and religion, i suppose you can try to tell me that Hitler wasn't Catholic and used religious propaganda for justification of the Holocaust.

So just to make sure I understand you, you feel that Christians are being persecuted because their right to persecute others is no longer a privilege they can have.

But my favorite is your lack of response, in that you didn't even acknowledge that the highest court of our land, just confirmed the Freedom of Speech for a group of Christians to say and shows signs of the most vile things to the families of our service members at their moment of mourning. The Privileges this group holds is because of the Principles of our Founding Fathers. Thus I find your quote most ironic.

You wrote: So a bunch of women and “other groups”, had the political clout to get alcohol driven from the land, yet it took women until 1970s to get the right to vote at a federal level. This was backed heavily by religious groups. You can criticize the source all you like, at least Wiki attempts to be objective. Unlike linking a site to a website run and managed by a full religious organization. You are entitled to your own opinion Sir, but not the facts of history.

It is obvious that you have your mind made up and do not want to be confused by facts.

Good day sir, I have more important things to do than argue with you. If you ever decide to open your mind to a discussion that goes beyond your narrow field of view, I will be around.

There are people for one reason or another call themselves Christians and are really only Christians in name only. In all aspects of life a person must meet certain criteria in order to be an actual accepted as part of a group. Whether it is a professional or religious organization a person must meet specific requirements set out to identify them as part of the group. Anything short of meeting those requirements will not suffice and the person cannot legally or otherwise identify with the group.

In some professions, a person identifying them selves as part of that profession when they are not can result in arrest and incarceration. That is how serious it is taken.

I do not know of one religion that does not require certain specific beliefs by the person to be identified with that religion. They do not allow the person to pick and choose which tenets to believe in, but require the acceptance of all of them by the individual.

For some reason a lot of people think they can be a Christian without accepting the tenets of Christianity and that is not the case.

You say you are a teacher or professor. How can you prove that to me? How can a doctor or lawyer or CPA prove to me they are the professional they are? How can a Muslim prove to me he is a Muslim or a Jew prove he is a Jew. How does a person prove they are a Christian?

In a profession a person shows they have earned that diploma of the profession they claim to be and have accepted the rules that founders of that profession have laid out to embrace and follow.

In a religion a person accepts the tenets of that religion as set out by the founders and leaders and accepts the sacred text handed down from generation to generation.

If a person or persons decide that they want to change the tenets of a religion or the rules to abide by in a profession, then they must remove themselves from the existing profession and/or religion and form a new one by a different name.

A person should not be so arrogant that they think they can declare the Bible is not the inerrant word of God and still call them selves a Christian or a Muslim claim the Koran is flawed and still call them selves a Muslim. Yet they do every day and bring discredit upon Christianity and/or Islam.

So before you do make a blanket condemnation of Christians make sure you were actually wronged by a true Christian. I think you will be surprised at the results.

"A person should not be so arrogant that they think they can declare the Bible is not the errant word of God and still call them selves a Christian"

I think you meant INerrant, but your theology has always confused me.

But belief that either the Old or New Testament is the inerrant word of God is not required by most Christian denominations, as belief that the Torah is the inerrant word of God is not required by most Jewish denominations. Many religions view their own holy texts as documents written, compiled, and filtered over many years by fallible humans. I think that belief in textual inerrancy is actually a tenet only of the fringe minorities.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake on the word "inerrant". No matter how hard we try every once in a while one will get past us. However, some like words not used properly can change the whole concept of what one is trying to say.

I must disagree with you on your opinion that

"Belief that either the Old or New Testament is the inerrant word of God is not required by most Christian denominations"

And

"I think that belief in textual inerrancy is actually a tenet only of the fringe minorities."

I believe you will find that the major denominations of Christianity all require the tenet that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Also, you will find that it is actually most of the fringe minorities that do not accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

Very well stated. Great editorial. Thank you for saying what needed to be said.

It is crazy to think the Governor can't attend the Governor's prayer breakfast as every Governor of both parties has done every year for years. Likewise the President with the National Prayer Breakfast each year.

"It is obvious that you have your mind made up and do not want to be confused by facts."
Where are your facts Sir? Every claim I have made I give references. Your denial that the Anti-Saloon League and the WCTU were not religious groups driving a political agenda is staggering. Your silence on the Westboro Church another jaw dropper. Like so many that cannot continue to debate with facts and site reference simply site "agree to disagree" and try to shut down as you have failed in your points. Then you want to make a post about what "is" and "is not" a christian because they do not meet a religious criteria? So by your own statement, Then you should have no problems with the Westboro church, perhaps you will be joining them at the next soldier's funeral? I dare say show me where they are going against scripture. But yet they are condemned by most. You cannot have it both ways Sir.

Why is it so hard for Christians to admit that horrible things have been done and continue to be done in the Lord's name? This is something we as Christians should acknowledge and try to change, not keep playing the victim card. It has been many generations since we were in the lion's pit. When i go to see the Lord, i know that i will do as He has commanded and be humble on bended knee. Not a prideful Christian that would pave their way to eternity at the suffering of others.

I did a little more research, and I definitely stand by my statement that requiring belief in textual inerrancy is a fringe view.

Within the Catholic Church, for example, inerrancy has long been a point of spirited debate. It does not appear that belief in inerrancy is required to be a Catholic in good standing. In fact, an inflexible stand regarding textual inerrancy led to the Church persecuting Galileo for contradicting clear biblical statements to the contrary and claiming that the Earth moves around the Sun. The Catholic Church has since relaxed its opposition to heliocentrism, but I certainly respect the faith of those mainstream Christian denominations that continue to hold fast to inerrant textual proofs of geocentrism.

I did enjoy the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, issued in 1978 by a group of 300 prominent Evangelicals. While an unequivocal defense of inerrancy, it includes this clarification at the end:

"Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission."

So, the bible is inerrant, but only the "autographic text of the original documents" minus any "slips" over the last few millennia. Clearly the authors of the Statement don't mean to be interpreted this way, but since original documents no longer exist, and in fact, if the bible is a transcription of oral history, an authoritative "original document" may NEVER have existed, the whole notion of inerrancy becomes an academic exercise.

That's good. I think hard-core theological debates should be limited to academic exercises.

I never said the WCTU or the Anti-Saloon League were not religious groups. My point was that the movement got started due to the effects of the over indulgence of alcohol was having on the family and marriages. This was why women actually initiated the movement. I agree that later on there were a lot of religious organizations involved that had the clout to get something going on the national level.

As far as the Westboro gang doing what they are doing, I believe that the judge was wrong.

You will no doubt have a lot of fun with my opinion since you have already made a rude statement about me joining them. As a veteran, I regard your remark as childish and insulting. Please refrain from such immature remarks or I will refuse to acknowledge your posts.

I have said before that just because political correctness indicates something is right does not make it right. In my opinion the Westboro gang does not have the right to disrupt the funeral of soldiers who died in the war or for that fact anyone else’s funeral. Whether they are in violation of scripture or not is not central here, but out of common decency and respect for someone else’s feeling during a very sad and traumatic time they should not do what they do.

I find it interesting how you chastise me about my silence on Westboro in previous posts. Then you challenge me to prove where they are going against scripture. Then you tell me I cannot have it both ways. You are sure reading a lot into something I had not commented on until now.

As far as my post about as you wrote, “"is" and "is not" a christian because they do not meet a religious criteria?” if one does not believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is then how can they be a Christian or follower of Christ?

Yes, there has been a lot of blood shed in the name of Christianity and I for one am not trying to deny it, but I am also no so naive that I am going to believe media reports at face value that a person that committed some atrocity was a Christian.

It has been a long time since Christians were in the lion pits, but Christians are being killed on a daily bases all over the world for their beliefs. We need to be thankful that we are insulated from this here in this country.

You guys got off track. In this case, it's about Christian or non-Christian. Perry is holding this prayer session only for political reasons. He's attempting to get the Christian vote around America should he choose to run for president. I will assume Perry is a Christian, but he is being a showboat in this case. I consider myself a Christian as well, but he isn't getting my vote either way. Well, I might vote for him if is running to take over the cheerleading squad at Texas A&M, that would ensure he isn't running for any other political office. Texas wins and the USA wins.

nicolas, you are absolutely right. The real story here is that Christians should be insulted by the governor's cynical manipulation of their religious faith for his personal political gain.

My guess is that if there was less vocal outrage from non-Christian groups, we would hear more opposition from sensible Christians. The problem is, the governor's actions are so outrageous that it's hard not to speak up. These are NOT attacks on Christianity, despite what the governor would like you to think!!!

The point is not off. This country was first settled by those escaping religious persecution. The founding fathers made sure that there would never be a single ruling religion for this country. That there would be freedom for every citizen to worship as they saw fit, for every citizen to speak their mind no matter how vile it may seem to some, and there would be a separation between those that governed our civil affairs in a way that would not infringe upon the first 3 mentioned liberties. The very first comment referred to those Anti-Christians seeking to thwart the work of Christians and that they would not rest till all of Christianity was destroyed. If any other religion has been at the core of this event and a person in a civil position was endorsing it, then a similar suit would have been brought against it. The suit was about an elected civil official using his position to call upon other citizens of the State to come and worship to a specific religion. This differs from the National Day of Prayer in that no single religion is put above another. It is a call for all faiths to pray as they see fit. That is not the case here. The case was thrown out for lack of standing, not merits of the case.
Sparetire hit the mark. This is NOT an attack on Christians, but there are those who would like to portray it as such. There are those that would point at other countries and cry wolf of our freedoms are going to be taken away. In Canada you are not allowed to sell anything with artificial caffeine. Quick don’t let them take away our sodas!! They are coming for them!! It is about checks and balances to ensure that THIS country’s freedoms are left in place. If ANY religion tries to blur the line, be thankful for those that have the mindset to take a piece of chalk and very firmly darken it back in.

Oh, wait: from the article the AJ links above, this quote about the sponsoring group is telling ...

"The event is being sponsored by several evangelical Christian groups, including the American Family Association, which has been criticized by civil rights groups for promoting anti-homosexual and anti-Islamic positions on the roughly 200 radio stations it operates."

Let's see, what is the American Family Association? Let's ask wikipedia:
"The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that promotes conservative Christian values such as opposition to same-sex marriage, to pornography, and to abortion, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. It was founded in 1977 by Rev. Donald Wildmon as the National Federation for Decency and is headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi."

Rick Perry's kowtowing to this outfit follows hard on the heels of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's seeking AFA backing for their 2012 Presidential bids. Now, I'm as pro-American as anybody, being myself a USAF veteran; but as much as I'd like to see Texas sensibly governed, putting w2 in the White House is not the answer.

Let's export him back to his family farm instead -- that's what he told the Air Force he needed out of his contract as a Hercules pilot to do, after all.

I responded to Americafirst and was sarcastic - I apologize because that masked my comment.

Praying for gays is on their prayer agenda - "lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act"- plus endorsing many issues is not separation of church and state. The AFA is about more than Christian families when you check their website and prior comments.

Perry is testing the water for a presidential run and keeps delaying his announcement until he knows he has the evangelical support since he already has big business. He's a real piece of work!

I am offended that Perry would use such a forum to gauge how well he'd play with religious right in a run for President! My concerns aren't with his religion, but with his nerve... if he's so religious, so concerned about the state of our nation, why hasn't he had a prayer session before now? And why trumpet the cause so loudly in political forums instead of religious forums? Methinks he is praying for votes, not the nation, but that is typical of today's politician. Sad.

How can an inspiring funeral poem help bring peace of mind and heart after a sudden death or loss of a loved one? Many people are very concerned with the fate and destiny of the deceased loved one. Is she safe? Is he happy? Will we ever meet or see or be with each other again? Here's how you can stay connected through death.
funeral directors